Astute political commentators realize Rudy Giuliani doesn’t stand a chance of becoming the next commander and decider guy, as that position is reserved for a Democrat, most likely Hillary Clinton. Our rulers are fond of the musical chairs process, selecting a Republican one term and a Democrat the next, providing the illusion we are throwing out the bums, when in fact we are voting for the same old globalist one-worlders. Thus Giuliani has nothing to lose by staffing his campaign with irredeemable neocons, most recently Michael Rubin and David Frum. “They join a staunchly neo-conservative team that includes Martin Kramer, an Israeli-American Shi’ism expert who wrote a book several years ago faulting the U.S. Middle East academic community for failing to anticipate the rise of al-Qaeda; Norman Podhoretz, a founder of the neo-conservative movement, who counsels a military strike to stop Iran from developing a nuclear program; Stephen Rosen, a Harvard University national security professor, and Peter Berkowitz, a law professor at George Mason University in Virginia,” notes the Jewish Telegraph Agency.
Rubin is a “resident scholar” at the American Enterprise Institute, the criminal organization masquerading as a “think tank” where Bush gets his “minds.” Rubin, along with his boss Podhoretz, are itching to attack Iran. Mike wants to assassinate Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Podhoretz collared Bush at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York last year, demanding he kill untold numbers of Iranian toddlers and grandmothers. “If a single bullet or bomb could forestall a far bloodier application of force, would it not be irresponsible to fail to consider that option—especially when the leaders of both Iran and North Korea threaten to use nuclear weapons and call for the destruction of both regional democracies and the United States?” Rubin wrote in the National Review last year. Of course, this single sentence is loaded with lies and neocon distortions, but then we have come to expect such from neocon psychopaths, determined to kick off World War IV, as they fondly call what they have in mind.
(Article continues below)
“The cost of any military strike on Iran would be high, although not as high as the cost of the Islamic Republic gaining nuclear weapons,” Rubin told the War Street Journal, er Wall Street Journal. “The Bush administration is paying the price for more than five years without a cogent, coordinated Iran policy. Each passing day limits policy options. Engaging the regime will preserve the problem, not eliminate it. Only when the regime is accountable to the Iranian people can there be a peaceful solution. To do this requires targeted sanctions—freezing assets and travel bans—on regime officials, coupled with augmented and expedited investment in independent rather than government-licensed civil society, labor unions, and media. It may be too late, but it would be irresponsible not to try.” In other words, for the sake of the Iranian people, the United States must impose “cogent, coordinated” starvation, otherwise known as sanctions, sort of like the medieval siege of Iraq during the last decade, and failing that commence with the cruise missiles and bunker busters. Naturally, as an Arab and Muslim hating neocon, Mr. Rubin prefers the latter, as the sight of mosques and hospitals withering under high explosives gets off his rocks.
It is said Rubin is an “expert” on Turkey and the Iraqi Kurds. But the Bush administration is not listening to his advice, as it has endorsed a politically expedient condemnation of Turkey for killing well over a million Armenians at the start of the last century, an effort that has outraged the Turks and pushed them toward invading northern Iraq and going after the PKK, the Kurdistan Workers Party. Rubin supports the Turks going after the Kurds and for obvious reasons—as a neocon, he supports any effort to create even more chaos and violence in the region, further shredding Iraq’s ethnic fabric, a plan the neocons want to impose on the region as a whole—but no doubt he regrets alienating the Turks in the process.
In fact, Rubin appears to believe brutal sanctions are a panacea for everything, especially when it comes to Arabs, Muslims, and Kurds. “In 2001, Michael wrote about his experience at universities in Northern Iraq, in the Kurdish autonomous zone,” writes Karen Kwiatkowski, a retired USAF lieutenant colonel who knows something about neocons, as she worked up close with them at the Pentagon. “His premise? Sanctions are actually helpful for the Kurds. He said this because he saw a lot of selling, buying, trading. Lots of resources finding their way into the American-protected Kurdish north.” In other words, sanctions are good because they bring out the Horatio Alger character in us all.
On Lew Rockwell’s website, Ms. Kwiatkowski relates her up close experience with Rubin and the neocons. “When Rubin was part of the Office of Special Plans, many of us, especially in uniform, saw the pooch get prepped for screwing, and then the actual screwing of the pooch. It wasn’t pretty. We saws guys like Rubin running around promoting a war because Saddam had a lot of viable WMDs. I’m sure it wasn’t Michael Rubin pushing that claim, and that these fantasy WMDs only existed in the minds of the OTHER Iraq war über-strategists. Not Michael.” Now that we have conclusive evidence Iraq was invaded under false pretense—something a few us knew in 2002, in the lead-up to the invasion—it is time for Mike to don an orange jumpsuit with chains about his waist and arms and work his way through the legal process toward a long incarceration. Instead, he is a Giuliani “advisor,” allowed to spread his lies and hatred about Iran, the next target on the neocon short list.
But it really does not matter. Not only will Giuliani not make the grade, but the next “president” will continue the neocon process, albeit this time around sans all the histrionic bravado, as the neolibs—separated at birth from the neocons—are as jazzed to make Muslims suffer, not specifically in the name of Israel but rather as part of a campaign to put heat on the hold-outs, those with ethical and cultural opposition to world banksterism, the IMF, GAT, World Bank, the NAFTAization of the world under the aegis of the money-makers ensconced in the City of London.
